Christians Together : Conference on Christianity and Science

Feedback:

(page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)

	Donald Boyd	01/09/2010 14:20
Dr Arthur Fraser clearly articulated his belief in millions of years of Earth history in the third lecture 'Can Christians believe in an Old Earth?', but the other lecturers made no comment on this. This lecture gave standard geological teaching and Dr Fraser said that there is no current geological evidence of Noah’s flood. However it was not a conference as there was no conferring. There were three lectures, and after paying our admission fee we were informed that there would be only one question per person - hardly a conference. Some lectures are so poor that if one is to benefit from them one needs to ask several questions, even if only to clarify what the speaker means. I got no opportunity to put a geological question to him. He referred to the short run-off time in the recent Pakistan floods as evidence that there was no time in Noah's flood to lay down the sedimentary rocks. The rain and run-off time in Scripture for Noah's flood was six months Gen 8:3, so that Noah’s was no local flood. When I asked him about this afterwards, he had no comment to make on it. Conference attendees are no wiser about this. The first two lectures were useful but the third one was evidently the controversial one and merited proper discussion and at least clarification.
	Alec (Guest)	01/09/2010 15:09
I have followed the Faith/Science debate for some time and I find it fascinating. Sounds like the conference was a missed opportunity to properly address some of the key issues. On the other hand, it may be that addressing some of these issues too closely leads to some difficult situations viz: Whether the debate is Faith vs Science or Religion vs Evolution or whatever, there is one key issue which most arguments hinge on . Origins The early chapters of Genesis speak of Man being specially created and that there is one man , created from dust, and one woman, created from Adams rib. They are perfect in their original state and creation itself has no flaws. So far so good. What then happens is that sin gets in – the Fall takes place and after this, physical death occurs, and the natural environment itself is disturbed and damaged (hence earthquakes) This is very much the YEC view, and to my mind , it fits perfectly with NT teachings. Paul and Christ both refer to Adam. It is perfectly clear that according to NT teaching humankind is sinful BECAUSE of Adam and Eve. It follows that Jesus and Paul believed in a literal Adam and Eve The whole NEED for the Christian scheme of redemption is based on the Fall of Man. It has to be a literal truth. Problem is, this doesn’t sit well with modern science. Adam and Eve the first representatives of Homo Sapiens? No Hominids before them? No plate tectonics before Adam and Eve bit a piece of fruit? (So was the earths crust homogenous? Where did Continental and Oceanic crustal types come from?) Were carnivores herbivorous before the Fall? When did they develop carnivorous digestive tracts and grow fang like teeth? It goes without saying that none of the YEC / literalist / 6 day creation / special creation of Man sits with any of 13 billion year old Universe > 4 billion year old Earth Evolution The problem is not one for the YECs – they simply deny modern science, and besides, a literal reading of Genesis fits perfectly with the Christian scheme of redemption. Anyone who takes a literalist /YEC view will have no difficulty getting the NT to agree with Genesis. The problem is for the OECs and Theistic Evolutionist believers. How does one square scientific evidence with a Christian worldview without 1) Simply ignoring the inconvenient bits 2) Using metaphor and allegory 3) Compartmentalising (which is a bit like 1)) It’s a difficult one. And its only when you start asking questions about the detail that the problems start to appear And it almost seems at time that there are only 2 possible ways of reconciling everything 1) Young Earth Literalism 2) Atheism Any opinions , feel free….. Alec
	Andrea Mac	01/09/2010 17:24
I believe in a young earth, exactly in keeping with the account in Genesis. I also have no problem with science. My only reservations are with man's interpretation of science. Particularly claims about the age of fossils and rocks etc. There may well be an established formula for calculating the age of specimens but who can possibly say that it is the right formula? How can you possibly check it out as there's no-one around from these times to confirm the accuracy of it? Those who believed the earth was flat were using their logic and common sense to come to that conclusion, after all if the ground looked flat you should be able to see as far as eyesight extends - but it was, of course completely wrong due to incomplete knowledge of the planet and its place in the solar system. However, thanks to those brave enough to sail towards what they thought was the 'end of the world', they discovered it was not as it all seemed. Obviously, we can't go back in time and see just what was there up to billions of years ago so we have no way of knowing the scientific accuracy of what some might think is true. How many times do we still hear of the "Big Bang" when it has already been claimed by some scientists to be scientifically impossible, and their reasons given for saying so? I find it very strange that people will completely reject the Bible, despite it being written by people who were around at the time, yet accept whatever scientists say about a time so far back in time that there is absolutely no records of anything from the time. No-one, no matter how intelligent and well-learned they may be, is infallible and it seems to me that they are treated as such.
	Alec (Guest)	01/09/2010 19:39
The age of the Earth is one of those touchstones of orthodoxy. It has been established by looking at scientific evidence as over 4.5 billion years old. This fact is uspported not just by one piece of evidence but many, across several scientific disciplines. Evidence for an old Earth has been published in thousands of journals. If all these scientists are wrong, then a massive part of the scientifc community has been barking up the wrong tree for years. They are not just a wee bit out, but massively so: Old earth: 4,500,000,000,000 years old Young earth: 6,000 years old That's it laid out in noughts The most telling thing about the case for a young earth is that there are NO (AFAIK) atheist or liberal Christian scientists who hold this view. If there WERE actual hard evidence for a young earth then there would be a number of them. After all, the evidence would not be too hard to find - mammalian fossil bones in Pre-Cambrian strata would clinch it. Actually such a discovery would not just put the accepted age of the earth into question, it would pull the rug from under evolution. The only reason for believing in a young earth is not because of science but because of a particular brand of faith. The starting point is fundamentalism predicated on biblical literalism, not scientific enquiry predicated on observing evidence, analysing it , publishing the results and leaving them exposed to potential falsification by subsequent research. Heres a quote to ponder by a Christian geologist: "Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given. Creationism must be abandoned by Christians before harm is done. The persistent attempt of the creationist movement to get their points of view established in educational institutions can only bring harm to the Christian cause. Can we seriously expect non-Christian educational leaders to develop a respect for Christianity if we insist on teaching the brand of science that creationism brings with it? Will not the forcing of modern creationism on the public simply lend credence to the idea already entertained by so many intellectual leaders that Christianity, at least in its modern form, is sheer anti-intellectual obscurantism? I fear that it will." [_Christianitiy and the Age of the Earth_, by Davis Young, Zondervan 1982. p. 163.]
	Andrea Mac	01/09/2010 20:09
Well Alec, I'll defend Creation to my grave. I'd rather put my trust in the Creator than in a tiny part of His creation. If Jesus Himself confirmed it, that's good enough for me and the intelligentsia can go to their grave thinking whatever they like. While I believe that created beings and plants began with the account in Genesis, it does not say the planet itself was created at that time. For all we know, it may have been around for billions of years. All the Bible actually says is that 'the earth was void and without form". It appears that God then re-shaped it to form hills and valleys and gather the water into confined areas. It would seem to make sense to me that this might cause compaction of rock which would normally be expected to take millions of years to bring about the same effect. I'm not saying this is definitely what happened but my own sense of logic and reasoning leads me to consider it a possibility, and that's all I would ever claim it to be since I am more than aware of the limits of my human understanding. Fascinating though I think it all is, ultimately it is not necessary for my salvation and I guess I'll get all the answers I need when I go to meet my God.
	Albert Dawson (Guest)	01/09/2010 21:39
Andrea M: all the religious books - whatever religion - were written by humans.Competing humans. Devious humans. Political humans. Greedy humans. That being the case there should be noisy alarm bells in your ears and anxious questions upon your lips.
	Andrea Mac	01/09/2010 23:01
Yes, every other book but the Bible. Of course it was put together by people but under God's guidance and authority. That is the whole crux of the Christian faith. If we cannot believe that basic claim, we would be as well shut the book and forget all about God because it would make Him out to be a liar. It is also the only book (as far as I know) which spans such a period of time, is written by many different people, yet is a continuing account of God's interaction with His creation, is consistent and gives factual accounts of the very prophecies which were made hundreds of years before. It gives us the very traits of even the most dedicated follower of God, warts and all and not one of them went through their life without committing some sort of serious action. It paints a picture of humans as they really are - all the things you mention and more besides, but most of all - rebellious - and that continues on as was foretold. One of the things I admire most about the Bible is the very fact that it tells it as it was (and will be) and I see all through it the same sort of people who are around today, including myself. Flawed human beings who want to do it their way. Who don't want to find God in science or anywhere else. Because if they do, they have to then face up to the stark reality of their own eternity. The most tragic thing is that this doesn't go away just because it isn't addressed. If God exists and is the God of the Bible, that has enormous implications for us all. What a tragedy to go to a lost eternity simply because pride made us think we had control over our own fate after death. The ending was decided a long, long time ago and is a stark choice between two options. We do have the choice as to which one it will be but it comes at a cost - are we prepared to pay that cost?
	Duncan Tamsett (Guest)	02/09/2010 11:13
1. It is not difficult to reconcile Gen 1 with Science! Allow the 6 Days to be 6 days of Vision rather than 6 days of instantaneous Creation. Creation (Heb) means 'to bring into being'. Instantaneous, even miraculous, is not necessarily implied. The last 150 years of Science then substantially affirms Gen 1 rather than contradicts it! (Daniel - "...and the Visions of the Evenings and Mornings that was told is true."). 2. Personally i regard Gen 2 as parable (Yeshua told parables!). Preach it as if it happened if you wish - but it didn't have to happen literally to tell us what we need to know about the state of our relationship with God. 3. 'The Fall' is Miltonian, not Biblical! 4. I do not generally admire the 'church fathers' but Augustine (3rd Cent) is growing on me. He said Xtians wld only succeed in making fools of themselves if they took Gen 1 over literally. Very prescient for a 3rd cent man. 5. Evol (if true) is utterly stupendous (truly 'Wonderful' in the Biblical sense of the word). It ought to raise the strong possibility of God - not be used as an excuse to dismiss Him. The Universe cld (shd)have been astoundingly dull. It turns out to be astonishingly vibrant (sorry i am not good at adjectives). 6. Personally i find a literal 6 day creation small minded and a dull idea. Of course 'God cld have done it'. But i hope God does not turn out to have a less expansive mind than Darwin / Wallace / Dawkins. I have very little fear of that.
	john Wilson (Guest)	02/09/2010 14:04
"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. This is exodus 20 part of the Ten Commandments written by the finger of God. Reguardless of how one inerprets Genesis litereally or not this scripture is clearly not meant to be metaphorical, poetical or arrigorical. It's clear as crystal. 7 days God made the heavens and earth and all that in them is (that would include the Stars on day 4) Most people totally ignore this and go with old earth models that place the stars millions/biliions of years before the earth. So who's right? God who was there, has perfect knowledge, made everything or men who are fallible, wern't there and dont know everything
	Duncan Tamsett (Guest)	02/09/2010 14:41
The passage you quote 'alludes' to Gen 1. It does not 'add' anything to it, or 'interpret' it; rather it is employed to establish Shabbat. Whatever Gen 1 means, it means the same thing (neither more nor less) in the passage you quote. (Interestingly most Xtians in any case disregard Biblical Shabbat despite it having been established 'by the finger of God' in favour of the Xtian tradition of some sort of observance of Sunday instead!)

(page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)

Conference on Christianity and Science

The apparent conflict between Science and Christianity is the subject to be addressed at a day conference in Inverness which will bring together three expert speakers on the theme.

Conference on Christianity & Science

Inverness East Church Hall,

Margaret Street, Inverness IV1 1LU

Saturday, 28 August, 2010